[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H437-H453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 418, REAL ID ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 71 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 71

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 418) to establish and rapidly implement 
     regulations for State driver's license and identification 
     document security standards, to prevent terrorists from 
     abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify 
     terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, 
     and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego 
     border fence. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour and 40 minutes, with 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Government 
     Reform; and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security. After general debate the Committee of the 
     Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of 
     the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent 
     order of the House.

                             Point of Order

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.

[[Page H438]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her point of 
order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against 
consideration of the rule, H. Res. 71.
  Line 10 on page 2 of H. Res. 71 states, ``All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived.'' The rule makes in order H.R. 
418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, which contains a large unfunded mandate 
on State governments in violation of section 425 of the Budget Act. 
Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Rules 
Committee may not waive section 425, and therefore this rule violates 
section 426.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentlewoman has 
met the threshold burden to identify the specific language in the 
resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
  Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) each will 
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
  Pursuant to consideration 426(b)(3) of the Act, after that debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit: ``Will the 
House now consider the resolution?''
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  1200

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Section 425 of the Budget Act states that a point of order lies 
against legislation which imposes an underfunded mandate against State 
or local governments more than 62 million per year over 5 years. At the 
very least, Mr. Speaker, we have before us today an unfunded mandate 
that will cost State governments between $660 million and $780 million 
over the next 5 years alone. It has come to my attention that the 
National Governors Association is opposed to this legislation for that 
very fact.
  Specifically, subparagraphs b, c, d, and e of section 202 of H.R. 418 
requires State governments to comply with new Federal driver's license 
requirements and to verify and store additional personal identification 
records, which the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, in its latest 
estimate projects to cost $120 million over the next 5 years, but last 
estimated costs States $240 million over 5 years. There have been no 
substantive changes since last year's to imply that this bill would not 
cost the States at least $240 million as estimated by the last 
Congress.
  The above sections also require States to participate in an 
interstate database to share driver information, which CBO estimates 
will cost an additional $80 million over 3 years. In addition, by 
necessary implication, the bill would require States to develop new 
standards for the issuance of birth and death certificates which CBO 
has estimated would cost States $460 million over the next 5 years. 
There is overwhelming evidence before us today that this bill, which 
has bypassed the committee process, denies Members the opportunity to 
hear expert testimony on the impact of these sweeping changes or to 
determine alternatives to ensure that all of us are on the same page in 
the war against terrorism.
  The opportunity to determine changes to current law or to offer 
amendments to the proposed legislation was not given to us, and it will 
impose overwhelming costs on State governments already struggling to 
meet the growing costs of local law enforcement's role in securing the 
homeland.
  Even further, this bill was drafted without any input from the 
Governors and State legislatures and even excludes the States from the 
standard-setting process despite States' historic roles as the issuers 
of driver's licenses and other identification data. We must be in 
partnership with our States if we are going to have a real war against 
terror in the United States.
  For these reasons, the Nationals Governors Association, as I 
indicated; the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators; 
and the National Conference of State Legislatures all strongly oppose 
this legislation in its present form. In a letter issued yesterday, the 
National Governors Association, American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators say that they are in opposition to the driver's license 
provision in both H.R. 418 and H.R. 368, stating the costs of 
implementing such standards and verification procedures for the 220 
million driver's licenses by States represents a massive unfunded 
mandate. This does not say that in a bipartisan manner reasoned out 
through committee process done very quickly that some addressing of 
this question cannot be properly answered.
  The National Conference of State Legislatures also has voiced strong 
opposition, stating that NCSL is opposed to any further Federal 
attempts including coercion or direct preemption to usurp State 
authority over the driver's license process or diminish the validity or 
usefulness of licenses awarded at the State level. NCSL urges the 
Federal Government to respect the provisions and intent of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
  What we have here today is an assault on federalism in the 
legislative process. The point of order is not about whether one agrees 
or disagree with the sweeping policy changes of the REAL ID Act. This 
point of order is about the farce before us that has trampled States' 
rights and inflated the burden on our local governments without their 
input.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on consideration of the resolution and 
stand up for the rights of their home States' legislature, Governor, 
and local governments, along with the people of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will perhaps apologize to the gentlewoman from Texas. I had thought 
that the minority was well equipped to have a document which I will 
enter into the Record from the Congressional Budget Office, a cost 
estimate dated February 7, 2005, concerning H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act 
of 2005, which is a summary of the issues that the gentlewoman from 
Texas is bringing up.
  The information that the gentlewoman is referencing is addressed 
within this document by the CBO. If I could, I would like to summarize 
for the gentlewoman, pending such time as we get her a copy of this, 
and I apologize that evidently one has not been provided to her. And I 
quote: ``As a result, the additional costs that would be imposed by 
H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005, would not exceed the annual 
threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Act, $62 million in 
2005,'' which is the annual adjustment rate for inflation. This bill 
authorized appropriations for grants to States and appropriations would 
be under that amount. And I would be pleased to make sure that the 
gentlewoman has that at this time.


               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

     H.R. 418--REAL ID Act of 2005
       Summary: H.R. 418 would authorize the appropriation of such 
     sums as necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for the 
     Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make grants to 
     states to cover the costs of improving the security of 
     driver's licenses as required by the bill. The legislation 
     also would make changes to current immigration law that aim 
     to prevent the entry of suspected terrorists into the United 
     States. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 418 would cost 
     about $100 million over the 2005-2010 period, assuming 
     appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill 
     would not affect direct spending or receipts.
       H.R. 418 contains several intergovernmental mandates as 
     defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO 
     estimates that those mandates would impose incremental costs 
     on state, local, and some tribal governments above what they 
     will likely spend under current law. CBO estimates that costs 
     to those governments will total more than $100 million over 
     the 2005-2009 period under current law. By comparison, we 
     estimate that such costs would total about $120 million (over 
     the 2006-2010 period) under H.R. 418. As a result, the 
     additional costs that would be imposed by H.R. 418 would not 
     exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA ($62 million 
     in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill would 
     authorize appropriations for grants to states to cover their 
     costs.
       This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as 
     defined in UMRA.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
     budgetary impact of H.R. 418 is shown in the following table. 
     The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750 
     (administration of justice).

[[Page H439]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
 
Estimated Authorization Level...................................       0      40      25      25       5       5
Estimated Outlays...............................................       0      40      25      25       5       5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Basis of estimate: The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458) authorized the 
     appropriation of such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 for the Department of Transportation to make 
     grants to states to cover the costs of improving the security 
     of driver's licenses as required by that act. H.R. 418 would 
     repeal those provisions of Public Law 108-458, shift the 
     responsibility of administering this program from the 
     Department of Transportation to DHS, and require state and 
     local governments to comply with more stringent provisions 
     than under current law. H.R. 418 would authorize the 
     appropriation of such sums as necessary for fiscal years 2005 
     through 2009 for DHS to make grants to states to cover the 
     costs of complying with the bill's provisions.
     Requirements for driver's licenses and identification cards
       Public Law 108-458 created federal standards for issuing 
     driver's licenses and identification cards and also imposed 
     intergovernmental mandates on state, local, and some tribal 
     governments. That law, however, gave broad authority to the 
     Department of Transportation to negotiate the specific 
     requirements of those standards. Based on information from 
     federal, state, and local agencies, CBO assumes that the 
     process for a negotiated rulemaking will give state and local 
     governments the opportunity to help shape federal standards; 
     those standards are thus likely to be less costly to 
     implement than the requirements of H.R. 418.
       In contrast, the provisions of H.R. 418 are more specific 
     and likely would go beyond what will be required under 
     current law. Specifically, state-licensing agencies would be 
     required to verify the documents presented as proof of 
     identification, residency, and citizenship status. Many of 
     the agencies that issue those documents charge a fee for 
     verification services. Licensing agencies also would have to 
     upgrade computer systems to verify documents and to digitize 
     and store electronic copies of all source documents. Finally, 
     some states that do not currently require background checks 
     for certain employees would face additional costs to complete 
     those checks.
       CBO estimates that these additional requirements in H.R. 
     418 would impose costs above those incurred under current 
     law. Based on information from state representatives, CBO 
     estimates that DHS would spend about $20 million over the 
     five-year period to reimburse states for the cost of 
     complying with the legislation, subject to appropriation of 
     the necessary amounts.
     Driver license agreement
       In addition, H.R. 418 would require states to participate 
     in the Driver License Agreement, an interstate database to 
     share driver information that was not included in Public Law 
     108-458. Based on information from the Government 
     Accountability Office and the American Association of Motor 
     Vehicle Administrators, CBO estimates that it would cost $80 
     million over three years to reimburse states for the cost to 
     establish and maintain the database.
     Barriers at U.S.-Mexico border
       The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration 
     Responsibility Act provided for the construction of a series 
     of roads and fences along the U.S.-Mexico border near San 
     Diego to deter entry of illegal immigrants. All but about 
     three miles of this barrier have been completed. Since 
     February 2004, completion of the barrier has been delayed 
     because of environmental conflicts with the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act (CZMA). H.R. 418 would permit DHS to waive 
     this act and any other laws as necessary to complete 
     construction of the barrier.
       DHS estimates that it has spent about $30 million thus far 
     on the barrier and that it will cost an additional $32 
     million to complete the project. The agency has less than $2 
     million in unspent funds, which are currently being used to 
     identify acceptable alternative plans to complete the 
     barrier. In addition, the CZMA already enables the President 
     under certain circumstances to waive laws as necessary to 
     complete projects deemed of paramount interest to the United 
     States.
     Other provisions
       Finally, CBO estimates that the bill's provisions, designed 
     to prevent the entry of suspected terrorists into the United 
     States, would have no significant costs because similar 
     screening procedures already exist.
       Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
     Procedures for processing and issuing driver's licenses and 
     identification cards under current law are in the process of 
     changing due to federal legislation enacted in December 2004. 
     The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     created federal standards for states to follow in issuing 
     driver's licenses and identification cards. CBO considers 
     these standards to be mandates because any driver's licenses 
     or identification cards issued after that time would be 
     invalid for federal identification purposes unless they met 
     those requirements. CBO estimates that those enacted mandates 
     will impose costs on state, local, and some tribal 
     governments over the 2005-2009 period totaling more than $100 
     million and will exceed the annual threshold established in 
     UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation) 
     in at least one of those years. Public Law 108-458 also 
     authorized appropriations for grants to states to cover such 
     costs.
     New mandates with significant additional costs
       H.R. 418 would repeal Public Law 108-458 and replace it 
     with several new and more stringent intergovernmental 
     mandates for processing and issuing driver's licenses and 
     identification cards. Based on information from federal 
     agency and state representatives, CBO estimates that those 
     mandates would impose incremental costs on state, local, and 
     some tribal governments above what they will likely spend 
     under current law. CBO estimates that costs to those 
     governments will total more than $100 million over the 2005-
     2009 period under current law. By comparison, we estimate 
     that such costs would total about $120 million (over the 
     2006-2010 period) under H.R. 418. As a result, the additional 
     costs that would be imposed by H.R. 418 would not exceed the 
     annual threshold established in UMRA ($62 million in 2005, 
     adjusted annually for inflation). The bill would authorize 
     appropriations for grants to states to cover their costs.
       Public Law 108-458 created federal standards for issuing 
     driver's licenses and identification cards and also imposed 
     intergovernmental mandates on state, local, and some tribal 
     governments. That law, however, gave broad authority to the 
     Secretary of the Department of Transportation to negotiate 
     the specific requirements of those standards. Based on 
     information from state and local government representatives, 
     CBO assumes that the process for a negotiated rulemaking will 
     give state and local governments the opportunity to help 
     shape federal standards; those standards are thus likely to 
     be less costly to implement than the requirements of this 
     bill.
       In contrast, the provisions of H.R. 418 are more specific 
     and likely would go beyond what will be required under 
     current law. Specifically, state-licensing agencies would be 
     required to verify with the issuing agency (many that charge 
     a fee for such verifications) each document presented as 
     proof of identification, residency, and citizenship 
     status. Those state agencies also would have to upgrade 
     computer systems to verify documents and to digitize and 
     store electronic copies of all source documents. Finally, 
     certain states that do not currently require background 
     checks for certain employees would face additional costs 
     to complete those checks.
       CBO estimates that these additional requirements in H.R. 
     418 would impose costs above those that will be imposed by 
     the mandates in current law. The incremental additional 
     costs, however, are unlikely, by themselves, to exceed the 
     annual threshold established in UMRA in any one year.
     Mandates with no significant additional costs
       The bill also contains several other intergovernmental 
     mandates. CBO expects, however, that these requirements would 
     probably not impose significant additional costs on state, 
     local, or tribal governments. Specifically, the bill would:
       Authorize the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
     Security to waive any laws necessary to complete construction 
     of a physical barrier between the United States and Mexico 
     near San Diego, California, and prohibit any court from 
     having jurisdiction to hear claims or ordering relief for 
     damage resulting from the waiver of such laws. This provision 
     would preempt state authority.
       Require states to implement training classes for employees 
     to identify fraudulent documents; and require documents and 
     supplies to be securely stored. According to state officials, 
     it is likely that states currently comply with those 
     requirements.
       Prohibit states from accepting any foreign document, other 
     than an official passport, for identification purposes for 
     the issuance of driver's licenses. Currently, at least 10 
     states accept identification cards issued by foreign 
     governments, such as the ``matricula consular'' issued by 
     Mexico. This prohibition would preempt state authority.
       Require states to resolve any discrepancies that arise from 
     verifying Social Security numbers, though the language is 
     unclear as to what specific actions would be required. 
     Currently, at least two states prohibit their employees from 
     enforcing immigration laws, and many of those discrepancies 
     may be related to immigration. This requirement might preempt 
     those state laws.
       Require that driver's licenses and identification cards be 
     valid for no more than eight years. Currently two states, 
     Arizona and Colorado, are valid for longer than eight years. 
     These provisions would preempt those state laws and impose 
     two to four years of additional staff costs to reissue the 
     licenses sooner than expected. Those costs would not be 
     incurred until eight years after the bill is enacted. In 
     addition, four other states--Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and 
     Wisconsin--issue driver's licenses and identification cards 
     that are valid for eight years. The bill authorizes the 
     Secretary to further limit the validity of licenses and these 
     states, as well as others, may be affected if the Secretary 
     exercises such authority. This provision would preempt state 
     authority.
       Authorize the Secretary to prescribe the design formats of 
     driver's licenses and identification cards to protect 
     national security and allow for clear visual differentiation 
     between levels and categories of documents.

[[Page H440]]

     Such design has traditionally been determined by states and 
     under current law; any standards developed under the 
     provisions of Public Law 108-458 may not require a single 
     design. This provision would preempt state authority.
     Other impacts on state and local governments
       In addition to the other requirements of the bill, states 
     would be required to participate in the Driver License 
     Agreement, an interstate compact to share driver information. 
     Any costs to state governments would be incurred voluntarily 
     as a condition of receiving federal assistance.
       Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill contains 
     no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact 
     on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; and 
     Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
       Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), distinguished ranking member of 
the full House Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to join in the point that is being made by the 
gentlewoman from Texas to remind all of our friends that when 
Republicans took power in 1994, they made a solemn promise to the 
States that they would make sure that there would be no imposition of 
unfunded mandates on those States, and today we have a chance to redeem 
that promise by voting ``no'' on consideration of this rule, which 
waives the unfunded mandate requirement.
  The majority may, if they have not already, attempt to argue that it 
is a minor mandate and show new and improved CBO estimates showing that 
the cost of this bill is only $125 million over the next 5 years; and, 
therefore, I think this warrants at minimum committee hearings in 
markups that has so far been denied this Congress.
  So we are not asking a lot this afternoon. And I am impressed by the 
Governors Association. Their letter points out that while they commend 
the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their commitment to driver's license 
integrity, they find that those bills would impose technological 
standards and verification procedures on States, many of which are 
beyond the current capacity of even the Federal Government.
  Moreover, the cost of implementing such standards and verification 
procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses issued by the States 
represents a massive unfunded mandate. So they close by urging us to 
allow the provisions of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 to work.
  So I commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for making 
such a very timely and important point of order, and I support her in 
it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate and respect the gentleman from 
Michigan's joining with the gentlewoman from Texas in bringing this 
issue before the House today. I would offer perhaps a different vision 
or view of the words that the gentleman has spoken. I believe that the 
Republican majority did sponsor the legislation for the Unfunded 
Mandates Act; however, I believe at the time that was done, there was a 
general understanding that unfunded mandates would have a threshold 
that was necessary to be met so that we would have to appropriately 
understand those items when we would have an unfunded mandate that 
would be necessary for us to understand what we were placing upon the 
States or municipalities that we would not then appropriate money to.
  The gentleman is at least correct that the Republican majority did 
introduce this legislation and pass it. However, the threshold that was 
established at that time, now as a result of inflation several years 
later, we are aware of, and that is why we have made sure to ask the 
question about what we are imposing on States for this very important 
issue that is within the jurisdiction of these States, but as a result 
of the needs of this great Nation to address driver's license 
inconsistencies and the integrity behind those.
  We believe it is necessary. So for the gentleman to bring this point 
of order with the gentlewoman from Texas, purely appropriate, I would 
remind all of my colleagues that we have addressed this issue, that CBO 
has been very clear that we do not reach those thresholds which would 
trigger this sort of point of order. So I would ask that my colleagues 
would pay attention not only to this argument but to understand that we 
have not violated any rule as it relates to the unfunded mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank my colleague from Texas for his comments. I think I can start 
out by saying that we come from a State that is very diligent and as 
well very astute on their Members of Congress supporting unfunded 
mandates to a burdened and already overworked State budget in a growing 
State that would have added responsibilities with this enormous burden 
that this REAL ID bill would exercise against it.
  Let me just say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), because I 
know his commitment to fiscal responsibility, let me refer him back to 
the CBO report of 2004. We appreciate the CBO, but we know what 
happened; and I think it is more important to know what the impact will 
be on the States on the basis of the National Governors Association and 
State legislatures. In 2004, on this very same bill, the CBO told what 
the numbers would be. It was not under $62 million. In fact, it was $80 
million every single year, making it $400 million of unfunded mandates. 
What has happened here is that in the new report, our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have gotten the CBO to, in essence, 
underestimate, fudge the numbers by leaving out some of the language in 
the bill, but the plan is to still put on the backs and burdens of the 
local jurisdictions and State jurisdictions the responsibility of the 
birth certificate document. So I beg to differ with my colleague, and I 
think that our colleagues should, with their eyes open, vote on this 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas has politely articulated 
something that I believe is misguided and inappropriate.
  The Congressional Budget Office is a professional organization that 
assists the United States Congress in knowing in a nonpartisan way 
those impacts of the laws that we pass, and I have respectfully made 
sure that the gentlewoman had a copy and had been advised that before 
she came to the floor, evidently, the minority was in possession of 
this new document of 2005. And the Committee on Rules, in a meeting 
that we had yesterday where we considered this legislation, had to 
understand the implications or some of the implications as it related 
to this act, and we rely upon the current information that has come 
from the Congressional Budget Office.
  So I am very disappointed that my colleague has chosen to think that 
we have placed pressure upon this professional organization, that we 
have fudged the numbers; and I would say to the gentlewoman from Texas 
that that, I believe, is not only an unfair accusation to this Member 
but, more specifically, to the Congressional Budget Office, which I 
believe is a professional organization, delivers a product that they 
put their name on and makes available to all who might read it.

                              {time}  1215

  So I respectfully disagree with the gentlewoman, do not accept the 
characterization that she has given to this Member or to the 
Congressional Budget Office, and would hope that the gentlewoman would 
find the time perhaps later in the day to bring this issue up upon full 
scrutiny of the documentation to recognize that, in fact, the 
professional conduct of the Congressional Budget Office was correct in 
their assertion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend knows we all have the greatest respect 
for the CBO, but the CBO analyzes what they

[[Page H441]]

are given. I might invite my colleague to read the CBO estimate, which 
clearly states that this is going to cost more than is indicated by 
this rule and by the legislation. In fact, it is clear that in 
addition, by necessary implication, the bill would require States to 
develop new standards for the issuance of birth and death certificates, 
which CBO has estimated would cost States $460 billion over the next 5 
years.
  I would venture to say the competents of the CBO could be put on the 
witness stand, and they would attest to the fact that this is what it 
was going to cost. So this is not in any way casting aspersions on 
their good work. It is what has been presented to them, and they have 
analyzed it. It is not an accurate picture, what has been presented to 
them this year, because they documented that this is a more than $450 
million program.
  Mr. Speaker, this violates the rule, and it violates the waiver 
where, in essence, the Republicans indicated in their early beginnings 
in the majority that they would not allow unfunded mandates to go 
forward on this floor. I joined them in that.
  I ask my colleagues to support this point of order, so we stand here 
united in a bipartisan way not to support an unfunded mandate.
  The actual merits of the bill, Mr. Speaker, can be discussed, as my 
colleague has said, later on during the day. We are discussing at this 
moment the value of this bill. It is excessive. It is burdensome. It is 
an unfunded mandate, and it might hamper our war against terrorism and 
the protection of our homeland. Let us try to do this in a more 
effective way.
  Mr. Speaker, I raise my point of order, and ask my colleagues to 
support it.
  Section 425 of the Budget Act states that a point of order lies 
against legislation which imposes an unfunded mandate against State or 
local governments more than $62 million per year over 5 years. At the 
very least we have before us today an unfunded mandate that will cost 
State governments between $660 million and $780 million over the next 5 
years alone.
  Specifically, subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of section 202 of 
H.R. 418 require State governments to comply with new Federal driver's 
license requirements and to verify and store additional personal 
identification records, which the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, in 
its latest estimate, projects to cost States $120 million over the next 
5 years, but last year estimated cost States $240 million over 5 years. 
There have been no substantive changes since last year's estimate to 
imply that this bill would not cost the States at least $240 million as 
estimated last Congress.
  The above sections also require States to participate in an 
interstate database to share driver information, which CBO estimates 
will cost an additional $80 million over 3 years. In addition, by 
necessary implication, the bill would require states to develop new 
standards for the issuance of birth and death certificates, which CBO 
has estimated would cost States $460 million over the next 5 years.
  There is overwhelming evidence before us today that this bill--which 
has bypassed the committee process, denying Members the opportunity to 
hear expert testimony on the impact of these sweeping changes to 
current law or to offer amendments to the proposed legislation--will 
impose overwhelming costs on State governments already struggling to 
meet the growing costs of local laws enforcement's role in securing the 
homeland.
  Even further, this bill was drafted without any input from Governors 
and State legislatures and even excludes the States from the standard-
setting process despite States' historic roles as issuers of driver's 
licenses and other identification data. For these reasons the National 
Governors Association, American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, and the National Conferences of State Legislatures all 
strongly oppose this legislation.
  In a letter issued yesterday the National Governors Association and 
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators stated their 
opposition to the drivers license provisions in both H.R. 418 and H.R. 
368, stating:

       The cost of implementing such standards and verification 
     procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses by states 
     represent a massive unfunded mandate

  The National Conference of State Legislatures also has voiced its 
strong opposition, stating that:

       NCSL is opposed to any further federal attempts including 
     coersion or direct preemption, to usurp state authority over 
     the driver's license process or diminish the validity or 
     usefulness of licenses awarded at the state level. NCSL urges 
     the federal government to respect the provisions and intent 
     of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

  What we have before us today is an assault on federalism and the 
legislative process. This point of order is not about whether you agree 
or disagree with the sweeping policy changes of the REAL ID Act. This 
point of order is about the farce before us that has trampled States' 
rights and inflated the burden on our local governments. I urge members 
to vote ``no'' on consideration of the resolution and stand up for the 
rights of your home States' legislatures, Governors and local 
governments.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear from the gentlewoman 
from Texas about a document that is old, that contained the best 
estimate and work at the time from the Congressional Budget Office. I 
have made available to the gentlewoman from Texas and for each and 
every Member of this body to see that the Congressional Budget Office 
has very clearly talked about the costs that would be associated with 
what might be known as an unfunded mandate. We believe, and they have 
concurred from the Congressional Budget Office that we are well within 
budgetary amounts to where we would not trigger this unfunded mandate 
clause.
  I think it is important that we do have this law. I am glad we have 
debates over how much burden we are placing upon States or 
municipalities, but in this case, I would urge my colleagues to 
understand that we have the official document that is as of yesterday 
by the Congressional Budget Office; and I would ask that they would 
support our position, knowing that we have fallen within the rules of 
the House.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of this, I would simply say that our 
position is, we value and hold and believe we are well within the rules 
of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired. The question is, Shall the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 191, not voting 14, as follows:


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  February 9, 2005--On Page H441 the following appeared: The vote 
was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas, 225, nays 191 
.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: The vote was 
taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas, 228, nays 191 .


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                             [Roll No. 23]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions

[[Page H442]]


     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Hinchey
     Jones (NC)
     Lipinski
     Norwood
     Obey
     Pence
     Schiff
     Snyder
     Stupak

                              {time}  1253

  Messrs. OWENS, BRADY of Pennsylvania, LARSON of Connecticut, 
BUTTERFIELD, BERRY, CUELLAR, Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, CLAY, TAYLOR 
of Mississippi and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 23, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 
of debate only.
  This general debate rule provides for 1 hour and 40 minutes of 
general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform, and 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and 
provides that after general debate the Committee of the Whole shall 
rise without motion and no further consideration shall be in order 
except by subsequent order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to begin the debate on fulfilling 
Congress's promise to the American people made in the wake of the 
tragedy of September 11, 2001, that our government will do everything 
it can to protect them from another deadly attack on our homeland. This 
promise was made in the days immediately following September 11 when 
President Bush committed to the American people that the full force of 
American power would be used to bring terrorists and their sponsors to 
justice.
  This promise was continued by the efforts of the September 11 
Commission and the subsequent efforts of Congress to study the 
frailties and oversights of our national security system that the 9/11 
terrorists were able to identify, exploit and use against us. And this 
promise will continue again today through the consideration of the REAL 
ID Act of 2005, which has been authored by my good friend, the chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  This legislation continues the reform mission begun by Congress in 
the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. By implementing the 
additional security measures including the REAL ID Act, Congress will 
help to ensure that our borders are secure, that terrorists cannot 
travel to America, and that the rule of law is respected by those who 
come to our Nation.
  The narrowly constructed legislation by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) accomplishes this goal by focusing on four common-
sense areas: implementing much-needed driver's license reform, closing 
the asylum loopholes, defending our borders, and strengthening our 
deportation laws.
  Implementing the driver's license reforms included in H.R. 418 will 
provide greater security for the American people because lax standards 
and loopholes in the various current State issuance processes allow 
terrorists to obtain a driver's license, often multiple drivers' 
licenses from different States, and abuse these fake identities for 
illegal and harmful purposes. The September 11 hijackers had within 
their position at least 15 valid driver's licenses and numerous State-
issued identification cards listing a wide variety of addresses.
  These terrorists were able to exploit many of the benefits conferred 
upon them by the possession of these cards, such as enabling the bearer 
to acquire other corroborating identification documents, transfer funds 
to U.S. bank accounts, obtain access to Federal buildings, purchase a 
firearm, rent a car or board a plane, just to name a few.
  By establishing minimum document and issuance standards for the 
Federal acceptance of driver's licenses, requiring applicants to prove 
that they are in the country legally, and requiring identification 
documents to expire simultaneously with the expiration of lawful entry 
status, this legislation will ensure that individuals harboring 
malicious intent who have illegally entered or who are unlawfully 
present in the United States, cannot have access to these valuable and 
sensitive documents.
  Closing the asylum loopholes identified by H.R. 418 will provide 
greater security for the American people because as the 9/11 Commission 
staff report noted, ``A number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum 
system.'' By strengthening judges' ability to determine whether asylum-
seekers are truthful and credible, we will be able to prevent future 
terrorists from gaming the system by applying for asylum as a means to 
avoid deportation after all other recourses for remaining in the United 
States have been denied to them. This will prevent abuses to the system 
like the case of the ``Blind Sheik'' Abdul Rahman, who was able to stay 
in the United States and force an immigration judge to hold a hearing 
on the asylum claim only weeks before his followers bombed the World 
Trade Center.
  Defending our physical borders, as provided for in the Real ID bill, 
will provide greater security for the American people. We know from the 
9/11 Commission that the hijackers had 25 contacts with consular 
officers and 43 contacts with immigration and customs authorities. As a 
result, the 9/11

[[Page H443]]

Commission and Congress have recommended and taken a number of 
appropriate actions that have made it more difficult for terrorists to 
enter the United States through the visa or other legal immigration 
process; and this bill will go even further toward attaining that goal. 
But closing down only the legal means by which they will try to enter 
and infiltrate our country is simply not enough.
  Because increased vigilance has made entering the country through 
normal, regular channels more difficult, we must also be increasingly 
prepared for the certainty that terrorists will try to use illegal, 
clandestine methods to enter our country and to do us harm, and we must 
now take steps to close those gaps in our border security where we are 
most vulnerable.
  Finally, strengthening our deportation laws as provided for by H.R. 
418 will provide greater security for the American people. Currently, 
although it seems unbelievable, not all terrorism-related grounds for 
keeping an alien out of the U.S. are also grounds for deportation. This 
means that terrorists and their closest advocates can be denied entry 
to the United States for their actions in support of terrorism, but if 
they are able to make it to our shores, we cannot deport them for those 
same actions.
  The REAL ID Act would bring some common sense to this troubling 
oversight and make the law consistent by providing that all terrorist-
related offenses that make aliens inadmissible would also be grounds 
for deportation. It would also provide that any alien contributing 
funds to a terrorist organization would also be deportable.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is intended to allow debate to begin on this 
important legislation and to give Members an opportunity to come to the 
floor and to voice their support or concerns about its contents as the 
Committee on Rules finalizes an appropriate rule for consideration of 
possible amendments. I encourage all of my colleagues to improve 
America's national security by supporting this rule to begin the debate 
on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and H.R. 418. The anti-
immigrant provisions contained in this bill are unconscionable. We are 
a nation of immigrants, a nation that people, from time immemorial, 
have journeyed to for freedom. As Ronald Reagan said, ``America is a 
shining light on the hill.'' Well, apparently, Mr. Speaker, today that 
light is red.
  We find ourselves in the second week of the second month of this 
legislative session, and we have yet to have a bill come to the floor 
with an open rule. And I remind the majority that that is shutting 
America out with reference to this debate.

                              {time}  1300

  We are here today without a final rule because of a lack of agreement 
on which amendments to allow. Well, I have a simple solution, one that 
should be obvious to all of us. I say, allow all amendments to be 
brought to the floor for a full and free debate by the House of 
Representatives as envisioned by this Nation's Founding Fathers who 
were immigrants. Let Congress work its will on this legislation.
  To stifle debate on a bill as ill conceived as H.R. 418 is 
undemocratic to the core. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for 
hesitation. This is the only bill of substance on the House's agenda 
this week. We have the opportunity to conduct an open debate on each 
radical section of this bill. As a country that prides itself on 
spreading democracy throughout the world, we must practice what we 
preach. Allow the people to have their say by bringing H.R. 418 to the 
floor with an open rule. Do not shut America out.
  The changes to asylum law contained in H.R. 418 will not improve our 
homeland security. Terrorists do not have the right to seek asylum in 
our country and are already prohibited from doing so, but those who 
would legitimately seek refuge at our shores ought not to be turned 
away from our golden door through this bill's misguided attempt at 
curbing immigration.
  Nor will erosion of our personal privacy improve our security. The 
collection of unnecessary personal information by State agencies in an 
attempt to discern each and every person's immigration standard goes 
against the very freedom this Nation was founded on by immigrants and 
must be rejected.
  Our Nation's security is of paramount importance; but in an effort to 
achieve that goal, let us, a thriving Nation of immigrants, not turn 
our backs on our history and our future. So before we replace the 
Statue of Liberty's torch with a ``Do Not Enter'' sign, let us 
reconsider in the most open of debates what that says about our great 
Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule to 
provide for consideration of this counterterrorism bill of which I am 
an original cosponsor.
  This is the REAL ID Act. It closes, among other things, the 3-mile 
hole in the fortified U.S.-Mexico border fence near San Diego. Border 
security must be a pillar of our national security policy. Recent press 
accounts have reported that al Qaeda operatives have joined forces with 
alien smuggling rings like MS-13 in order to enter the United States, 
particularly through our porous southern border.
  This bill establishes strong security standards for the issuance of 
driver's licenses that all States must comply with to eliminate weak 
links in identity security.
  The nineteen 9/11 hijackers had 63 validly issued driver's licenses 
and other forms of identification between them, and they were using 
these IDs to move around the country undetected, plotting and planning. 
In fact, eight of them were even registered to vote. They then used the 
bogus licenses that they had to board U.S. planes.
  H.R. 418 cracks down on asylum fraud by ensuring all terrorism-
related grounds of inadmissibility are grounds for deportation. The 
Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who led a plot to bomb New York City 
landmarks, used an asylum application to avoid his deportation. It is a 
fact that terrorists have continued to use and abuse asylum laws to 
stay in our country.
  As the 9/11 Commission found, abusing our asylum law is ``the primary 
method,'' in their words, used by terrorist aliens, like the 1993 World 
Trade Center bombers Ramzi Yousef and Ahmad Ajaj, to remain in the 
United States. Both, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, ``concocted 
bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United 
States.'' So if we want to make it harder for terrorists like Yousef 
and Ajaj to abuse our asylum system, support this counterterrorism 
bill.
  The ninth circuit created an extremely disturbing precedent that has 
made it easier for suspected terrorists to receive asylum. The circuit 
has held that if a foreign government harasses an alien because he has 
been affiliated with a terrorist group, the alien is eligible for 
asylum because he could be persecuted on account of the political 
opinion of that terrorist group. Since members of terrorist 
organizations are eligible to receive asylum, under this doctrine an 
alien could receive asylum expressly because he was an admitted member 
of a terrorist organization.
  The bill returns the law to its original understanding and overturns 
this ninth circuit precedent by requiring that asylum applicants 
establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 
social group, or political opinion was or will be a central reason for 
their claimed persecution.
  These are commonsense changes to national security and to border 
security.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my very 
good friend who serves on the Committee on Rules with me.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep frustration with the process 
being used by the Republican leadership in this House. The bill before 
us today radically changes, among other things,

[[Page H444]]

the asylum law of this country. Religious groups, civil rights groups, 
human rights groups have all expressed grave concerns with this 
legislation.
  There are serious and legitimate concerns with this bill, but the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary did not hold a single 
hearing or markup in the 109th Congress. In fact, the bill bypassed the 
Committee on the Judiciary completely. Despite the chairman's rhetoric, 
there are provisions included in this bill that were never considered 
in the last Congress.
  The pattern of abuse by the Republican leadership continues 
unchecked. Major bills are being rushed to the floor without even a 
passing glance by the committee of jurisdiction. Bills are being 
brought up without Members getting the chance to read them. Thoughtful 
amendments are routinely denied an opportunity even to be debated.
  The rule that we are considering right now provides for only general 
debate. Later today, the Committee on Rules will meet again on H.R. 418 
to decide whether the amendment process will be open or closed.
  Yesterday, among several other amendments, our colleagues, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Meek), testified that they believed the asylum provisions in this 
bill will make it harder for a persecuted person to gain asylum in the 
United States. They have an amendment to strike that language from the 
bill, and I hope the House will have an opportunity to consider that 
amendment.
  Those who gain asylum are legitimately fleeing from persecution in 
their home countries. They are fleeing for their lives; but under this 
bill, a woman forced by her government to have an abortion who tries to 
flee from such oppression will be forced to return to her home country. 
I cannot believe that the United States Government would be that cruel 
and we would turn our backs on people who need asylum in order to truly 
be free from torture and persecution.
  Let me be clear. Every one of us wants to make this country safer and 
more secure and prevent any further attacks, but this bill is not going 
to do it. Asylum already is a highly scrutinized process and is very 
difficult to get. By law, terrorists are already barred from gaining 
asylum. What we need is better enforcement of the laws we already have, 
not a bill that restricts the flow of the persecuted just because a few 
in this body either do not like immigrants or feel the need to pander 
to political pressures from immigrant haters in their districts.
  As I said, there are other amendments that were offered last night in 
the Committee on Rules by both Democrats and Republicans, a total of 
14. They are all important. They are all relevant to this bill. They 
all should be considered.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. For many, it is a life or 
death issue. The least we can do is give this bill an open rule. This 
is the very least we can do given the lousy process that we have been 
shown.
  What we should do, however, is send this bill back to committee, 
allow the committee to hold hearings and discuss this thoughtfully. Let 
us hear from the experts. Let us all understand the impact of this 
bill. Let the committee do a markup and send the bill to the full House 
for a vote.
  We can do better, and I would appeal to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to urge their leadership to stop trashing the rules, 
procedures, and traditions of this House. No matter what our views are 
on this bill, no matter what a person's political party or ideology is, 
all of us I hope can agree that the current process undercuts democracy 
and diminishes this great House of Representatives.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to support the rule and encourage this body to 
move forward with legislation that we have already debated many times 
in the last Congress and legislation that really solves a problem.
  I do suggest that using terms like ``immigrant hater'' does not help 
this debate. This is about border security. It is not about those of us 
who reach out to help immigrants, particularly those immigrants who are 
here legally and lawfully all the time. It is not even about whether 
they are disadvantaged by people who are here illegally.
  This is about three significant border security issues. One is ID and 
clearly ID issued by States is important and significant. The 
bipartisan commission that looked into 9/11 dealt specifically with 
this issue, something that has been overlooked in much of our debate 
now, the almost-sanctified 9/11 Commission. That commission said travel 
documents are as important as weapons and urged the Congress to do 
something about travel documents that did not reflect the true status 
of individuals.
  In fact, on September 11, driver's licenses became weapons of mass 
destruction.
  In the United States today, a driver's license is all it takes to 
transfer money to a bank account, to enter a Federal building or other 
vulnerable facility, to board a train or an airplane. Lax standards and 
loopholes in the current issuance processes allow terrorists to obtain 
driver's licenses, often multiple licenses from different States.
  In southwest Missouri, where I am from and right in the middle of the 
country, of the 1,387 people who were detained by the office there who 
were illegally in the country in the year that ended September 30, 50 
percent of those people had a state-issued driver's license or state-
issued ID card, not at all difficult to get.
  Of the 19 terrorists on 9/11, they had five dozen driver's licenses 
between them and used those driver's licenses to get on the planes that 
crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in 
Pennsylvania.
  This act would require identity documents to expire at the same time 
a visa expires, so that someone who is here on an appropriate 6-month 
visa, as, in fact, much to our amazement, some of the 9/11 terrorists 
were, are not given a 6-years' driver's license when the documents they 
do produce say they can legally be here for 6 months.
  This bill also tightens the process of applying for asylum in the 
United States to close loopholes in the system that have been taken 
advantage of by terrorists. This issue was widely debated on the floor 
last year. The example I gave was the terrorist who was here from 
Jordan who had bombed an international school in Jordan full of 
American kids. Well, that terrorist had not committed a crime in this 
country and under the current law was allowed to stay here unsupervised 
in a country full of American kids. Certainly that is not acceptable. 
That person should have had to have a hearing. This legislation 
requires that.
  I urge that we adopt the rule and the legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), my good 
friend, the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who ably serves on the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the Committee on 
Rules, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, as the lead conferee on the intelligence reform bill, I 
oppose the rule on H.R. 418 and the underlying bill because they will 
not make us safer. What H.R. 418 will do is undermine several key 
provisions of the Bipartisan Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act, which Congress passed and the President signed into law 
just 2 months ago.
  Those who claim that the so-called REAL ID Act will enhance national 
security are flat wrong. Remember, all of the September 11 hijackers 
entered this country with legal immigration documents. Legislation 
prohibiting illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses would 
not have stopped a single 9/11 hijacker.
  We dealt with this issue responsibly in the intelligence reform 
legislation. The law establishes tough minimum Federal standards for 
driver's licenses so that all driver's licenses have certain key 
security features.

                              {time}  1315

  The law also requires the Transportation Security Administration to 
set newer standards within 6 months for identification documents which 
may be used to board commercial airplanes. These provisions are much 
stronger

[[Page H445]]

than what is being proposed by H.R. 418, yet H.R. 418 would repeal 
these critical new security upgrades.
  Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that if we want to cut down on 
illegal immigration, we must improve border security. Just 2 weeks ago, 
an astute crane operator at the Port of Los Angeles discovered 32 
Chinese stowaways in a container that had just been unloaded from a 
Panamanian freighter. The State of California already prohibits illegal 
immigrants from getting a driver's license, but that did not discourage 
these stowaways from trying to sneak into California and the United 
States.
  The people at our ports and our borders are our first line of 
defense. That is why the Intelligence Reform bill included 
authorization for 10,000 new border guards, 40,000 new detention beds 
to hold people awaiting deportation, and 4,000 new immigration 
inspectors. Yet the President's 2006 budget does not include funding 
for any of these new security improvements. If we are going to serious 
about border security, we need more resources and more people at the 
border.
  I urge my colleagues to retain the REAL ID provisions in the 
Intelligence Reform bill and reject this imposter. We already have the 
tools for securing driver's licenses, and our borders that will truly 
make our country safer.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Much has been and will be said about this bill's impact on making it 
more difficult for terrorists to get identification to conduct their 
terrorist activities and the reform of the asylum laws and the plugging 
of the fence south of San Diego. However, there is an issue of public 
safety involved in this bill as well.
  Yesterday, a criminal complaint was unsealed in the Federal Court in 
Chicago which showed that there was a huge scam in getting Wisconsin 
driver's licenses for illegal aliens to drive trucks. And in at least 
one instance, the case of Nasko Nazov, who is an illegal alien from 
Macedonia, 3 days after he obtained this driver's license, he killed 
four people, a family of four, in a truck-car accident in Baileyton, 
Tennessee.
  Now, the criminal complaint says that the scam worked as follows: 
Foreign nationals paid sponsors in Chicago up to $2,000 for help in 
getting a commercial driver's license. Several Wisconsin residents were 
paid a one-time fee for use of their addresses. The clients were 
transported from Chicago to Milwaukee via van to banks in Milwaukee, 
where they used the Wisconsin addresses to open checking accounts.
  After the checks were printed, the clients brought them to the 
Division of Motor Vehicles as proof of their residency required to take 
their written tests. In Wisconsin, the written tests were given in 
English, Spanish, and Russian. People who spoke other languages had to 
bring their own interpreters. Some of the interpreters helped the 
clients cheat on the tests.
  In some cases, the sponsors accompanied the clients to a private 
facility that has a contract with the State to conduct road tests. 
Employees there accepted payments that ensured that the clients passed 
the test whether or not they knew how to drive a truck.
  Now, because Wisconsin does not require proof of legal residency in 
the United States in order to get a driver's license, whether it is a 
regular license or a commercial driver's license, Mr. Nazov got a 
license validly issued by the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles, 
and 3 days later killed a family of four on a highway in Tennessee with 
a truck he did not know how to drive.
  Now, legislation like this would have been a key move in preventing 
an illegal alien from getting this driver's license, a driver's license 
he could not have gotten in the State of Illinois. I think this proves 
that there is more involved to this than border security. There is an 
issue of public safety. And if you do not believe that, ask the family 
of the people who were killed in Tennessee.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the story from the Milwaukee 
Journal Sentinel entitled ``Tennessee Deaths Bring New Charge.''

 Tennessee Deaths Bring New Charge: Trucker Illegally Obtained License 
                                  Here

                            (By Gina Barton)

       A man who got a commercial truck driver's license illegally 
     in Wisconsin killed a family of four on a Tennessee freeway, 
     then lied about his actions, according to a criminal 
     compliant unsealed Tuesday in federal court in Chicago.
       Nasko Nazov, an illegal immigrant from Macedonia, is 
     charged with lying to a federal grand jury during an offshoot 
     of ``Operation Safe Road,'' the federal investigation that 
     ultimately led to criminal charges against former Illinois 
     Gov. George Ryan. The investigation also revealed that in 
     Wisconsin at least 600 people from other states cheated on 
     written exams, bribed officials administering road tests or 
     lied about their residency to get truck driver's licenses, 
     according to court records.
       If convicted, Nazov, 45, of Downers Grove, Ill., faces a 
     maximum penalty of five years in prison, a fine of up to 
     $500,000 and deportation. He also is wanted in Tennessee on 
     reckless homicide charges, said Randall Sanborn, spokesman 
     for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago.
       Nazov--who has never lived in Wisconsin--received a 
     Wisconsin commercial driver's license on March 4, 2003, 
     according to court records. Three days later he caused a 
     fatal wreck on I-81 near Baileyton, Tenn., according to media 
     reports. Edward Dean Armstrong III; his wife, Melissa; his 
     10-year-old daughter, Brittany; and his 6-year-old son, Dean, 
     all were killed. The family was returning home to Virginia 
     after visiting family in Knoxville, Tenn., according to the 
     reports. Their 1998 Saturn was stuck in traffic because of an 
     earlier accident. Nazov, who was driving a tractor-trailer, 
     first hit a pickup, then plowed into the Armstrongs' car, 
     shoving it under another large truck.
       ``We believe there are up to 1,000 suspect licenses, and 
     this shows the risk inherent in each of those,'' U.S. 
     Attorney Steve Biskupic said Tuesday.
       A Milwaukee investigation parallel to the one in Chicago is 
     continuing, he said.
       Both probes center on foreign nationals. According to court 
     records in the Chicago case, the scheme worked like this:
       The foreign nationals paid sponsors in the Chicago area up 
     to $2,000 for help getting a commercial driver's license.
       Several Wisconsin residents were paid a one-time fee for 
     use of their addresses.
       Clients were transported from Chicago via van to banks in 
     Milwaukee, where they used the Wisconsin addresses to open 
     checking accounts.
       After the checks were printed, the clients brought them to 
     the Division of Motor Vehicles as the proof of residency 
     required to take their written tests.
       In Wisconsin, the written tests are given in English, 
     Spanish or Russian. People who speak other languages must 
     bring their own interpreters. Some of the interpreters helped 
     the clients cheat on the tests.
       In some cases, the sponsors accompanied the clients to a 
     private facility that has a contract with the state to 
     conduct road tests. Employees there accepted payments that 
     ensured the clients passed their tests, whether or not they 
     knew how to drive a truck.
       The Wisconsin rules for licensing are less strict than 
     those in Illinois. There, written tests are offered only in 
     English, and translators are not allowed. Road tests in 
     Illinois must be conducted at state offices, not private 
     facilities.
       Nazov listed an address in the 4200 block of W. Loomis Road 
     in Greenfield on his driver's license application, according 
     to the charging documents. He testified before a grand jury 
     in June 2004 that he had lived there for a few months with 
     his girlfriend. He told federal investigators he remembered 
     only her first name, Julie, and that she has since left the 
     country. He could not provide them with a description of the 
     building, according to the documents.
       The owner of the building said he had never rented an 
     apartment to Nazov or to a woman named Julie. The owner also 
     found letters from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 
     addressed to Nazov and four other people at the building, 
     according to the documents. The owner, who told 
     investigations he had not authorized anyone to use the 
     address, has not been charged.
       Nazov, who speaks Macedonian, took his written test with 
     the help of an interpreter, according to court records.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my very good friend.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my friend from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, my opposition to H.R. 418 is for two reasons, one that 
is broader in the context of the problems we face, and one is specific 
to asylum. I am just going to address the former on the issue of 
debating essentially an unobjectionable rule that simply allows for 
general debate and urge opposition on that ground alone.
  The placement of the bill on this agenda at this particular time is a 
manifestation of the triumph of ideology over common sense, and it is a

[[Page H446]]

response to spasms of anger rather than a reflection of sober analysis. 
Contrary to the arguments of the Republicans, including my friend, the 
chairman of the committee, including the majority leader of this House, 
the issues of immigration reform, border security, national security, 
and public safety are inextricably linked. But we hear not one word or 
hint of any intention on the part of the majority in this House, in 
contrast with both the President and the leadership in the Senate, of 
ever dealing with the fundamental issue.
  Our immigration system is broken. The results of that breakdown 
endanger American security. Between 8 and 14 million people are in this 
country without legal status. They live in our shadows. They utilize 
false documents. Their true identity is unknown. For the most part, 
they work and pay taxes. And, except for their illegal status, they 
observe our laws.
  They provide the overwhelming proportion of the workforce in critical 
industries. They are located throughout the country and they are 
subject to all kinds of exploitation, but for a variety of reasons, 
they have no intention of leaving this country. A few among them, 
without doubt, a few among them mean harm to Americans and are plotting 
terrorist acts. The status quo is simply intolerable.
  But where the proponents of this bill are so wrong, so self-
defeating, is in thinking that piecemeal fixes like this have anything 
to do with protecting Americans against those who are plotting to harm 
us. Only a comprehensive approach that deals with issues like defense, 
like a nonforgeable identifier, a nonforgeable Social Security card, 
effective enforcement, and coming to terms with the status of the 8 to 
14 million people who are working and linked to working and have 
committed no other crimes, getting them out of the shadows so we can 
know who they are, we can fingerprint them and match them to watch 
lists. That is the only way to deal with the problem.
  Look at our situation. The majority leader says ``This bill is a 
border security bill. It is a Homeland Security bill. Immigration 
reform is a completely different subject.''
  The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), says ``It is to everybody's best interest to separate 
out the security questions from the immigration questions.'' But you 
cannot. President Bush knows that. He realizes that these gentlemen are 
wrong, that this analysis is wrong, that this piecemeal approach is not 
going to do the job; and he has repeatedly called for a comprehensive 
reform of our immigration system because ``The current system results 
in diverting homeland security resources to chasing people who are here 
because they want to put food on their table. They take resources away 
from catching criminals and terrorists.'' That is the President.
  Senator Cornyn, the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims, no liberal he, realizes that the strategy of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin is a mistake. He said it pretty specifically, ``I don't 
believe we can deal with border security and homeland security without 
dealing with immigration reform.''
  Aside from the asylum provisions, I do not have any heartburn about 
these, of course, in a world where we have fixed the system so it does 
not have 8 to 14 million people here out of status, illegally, 
undocumented, and people who should not get driver's licenses. But this 
will not solve the problem. There will be people who are not going to 
be here legally, who will have driver's licenses after this bill 
passes, and there will be people with false IDs after this bill passes; 
and you will not have dealt with the fundamental issue.
  For that reason, more than any other, although the fundamental change 
of the asylum system that is going to keep people fleeing persecution 
from finding their historic asylum in this country, without dealing 
anything with terrorists who are already eligible for asylum, is 
another reason to oppose this bill, and I urge opposition on it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time 
remaining for both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support both of this rule and the underlying 
bill, the REAL ID Act. I also want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his effort in bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  All of the reforms contained in the REAL ID Act are crucial to our 
national security interests, and all of them will help make America 
less vulnerable to terrorist attack. The bill's provisions include 
long-overdue and very common-sense safeguards that were recommended 
specifically by the 9/11 Commission. Let me point out just one of 
those.
  ``Secure identification should begin in the United States,'' wrote 
the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. They went on to say, ``The Federal 
Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates 
and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Fraud in 
identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. At many 
entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding 
aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure 
that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are 
terrorists.'' The bipartisan 9-11 Commission called for this 
legislation.
  Just a moment ago I heard one of my colleagues say this legislation 
does not improve upon the bill we passed dealing with the issue just a 
few months ago. I beg to disagree. Her point was, it does not address 
the issue of those who are here illegally, yet it very much does so. A 
provision of this bill pushed by my colleague, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake), for a number of years, provides that a driver's 
license may not have an expiration date beyond the date upon which 
someone's visa expires. That would specifically go to people here 
illegally.
  Let me point out how it would have applied to the 9/11 hijackers. 
Looking at Nawaf Alhazmi, his visa expired in January of 2001, yet he 
got a Florida's driver's license in June of 2001, he got a Virginia ID 
card in August of 2001, and he got a reissued Virginia ID card in 
September of 2001.
  A second hijacker, Hani Hanjour was in the same situation. He was in 
violation of his visa when he obtained a Virginia State ID in August of 
2001 and a Maryland ID in September of 2001.
  These are critical reforms to making America safer. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my classmate and 
colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this 
legislation.
  It is interesting that we are discussing the driver's license the day 
after the President's budget was released that did not fund the border 
patrol officers we authorized 2 months ago. Instead of 2,000, the 
President only wants to authorize 200 new border officers. We are 
attacking the driver's license issue, which seems strange, when we 
should be attacking the person who may be getting it.
  I always hear that ``Guns don't kill people, people do.'' Well, that 
driver's license does not kill anybody. It is the person who does it. 
Let us go after that person. And that is what those 2,000 border patrol 
officers for the next 2 years are supposed to do.

                              {time}  1330

  You know, building a fence is a good idea. But, again, I think it 
ought to be built like other construction projects, subject to 
competitive bidding and environmental concerns. There is bound to be a 
way we can build a fence that is environmentally safe along the desert 
in Southern California.
  I have a district in Texas, and I know that we need secure 
identification cards that are used like driver's licenses. But we have 
one of the largest minority immigrant populations in the

[[Page H447]]

country, and more people immigrate to the United States through Texas 
every day. Having secure ID cards not only helps protect our homeland, 
but also helps our law enforcement keep our roads safer and enables 
them to do a better job. That is why we addressed this issue 2 months 
ago and required, under the Intelligence Reform Act, the Department of 
Homeland Security to establish standards, guidelines for ID cards.
  The REAL ID Act goes far beyond that. That is what I am concerned 
about. This legislation even goes beyond this by preventing any form of 
judicial review to such waivers.
  Our government was founded on checks and balances. And as much as a 
Member of Congress would like to eliminate the Supreme Court or the 
court system, you can not do it. The Constitution makes sure that we 
are equal branches of government.
  And, again, I support barriers. I support tightening security. I 
support additional border patrol, but attacking driver's licenses is 
the wrong effort.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise to address support for the rule and the 
underlying legislation and, specifically, a few of the allegations that 
have been made about this legislation. First of all, there has been an 
allegation made that this violates States' rights. Many of us are firm 
believers and supporters of States' rights, and the fact is, the States 
have the right to give a driver's license to whomever they wish. That 
is their State's right.
  However, this legislation says, if you are going to use that 
identification card to get on transportation that is in interstate 
commerce or otherwise, then it is going to have to meet certain minimum 
standards. So you have the States' rights. However, this Federal 
Government has the obligation to protect its citizens, and it is 
something that should not and will not be taken lightly.
  As regards another aspect, asylum, we have a situation in which a 
legislative body, as it has come to be, that is also known as the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, has enacted legislation that overcomes and 
overwhelms a judge's right and ability to judge credibility as it 
should. That has to be overcome by this legislative body, trumping that 
legislative body called the Ninth Circuit. That is what we are trying 
to do.
  I have heard friends across the aisle say that Americans have 
journeyed freely in the past and that this goes against the very 
freedoms which this Nation was founded on. But the truth is, try 
getting on an airplane. We do not have freedom anymore. And the more 
liberties that we forgo withdrawing at the border, and restricting and 
making sure people who are coming in do not mean us harm, then the more 
liberties we are going to lose in this country.
  So it is important that we make sure we have that water 
metaphorically flowing into this lake to give it life, but it is even 
more important that we restrict those who would harm us from coming in, 
as they would.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good 
friend from Massachusetts, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) I have not had 
an opportunity to talk to him, and I simply want to point out to him 
that all of us that have feelings regarding States' rights line up in 
many respects alike. But the gentleman needs to know that the National 
Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, the National Conference of State Legislators all oppose 
this legislation. And the primary reason that they do would be, had I 
known the gentleman 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, he would have been 
arguing that the Federal Government is sending unfunded mandates to the 
States.
  Well, welcome to the Federal Government. This is an unfunded mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 4 minutes to my very good 
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  (Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first we have to talk about 
the procedure. This is a complicated bill. It includes several 
different subjects, asylum, identification, a fence, yet apparently the 
majority is contemplating, at most, one amendment.
  This is legislation by hostage-taking. You put a whole bunch of 
things together, including several that are controversial, so if 
Members oppose any one of them, they will be extorted into voting for 
the whole package.
  We are in the process now, after the election in Iraq, of trying to 
persuade the Shiia, who will be in the overwhelming majority, to 
practice democracy, not to abuse their majority, but in fact to 
encourage members of the minority to participate. It is essential for 
us to be able to salvage what is going on in Iraq for there to be an 
agreement on the part of the Sunni Muslims to participate.
  In other words, we are telling the people of Iraq that to practice 
democracy means respect for minority rights.
  And here we have the majority in the House of Representatives, a 
fairly narrow majority, apparently contemplating forcing an up-or-down 
vote on controversial legislation, maybe allowing one amendment, 
clearly repressing the strong desire of the minority to be able fully 
to debate it. In the end, the majority will decide, but they don't even 
want the debate.
  And I guess I know, Mr. Speaker, it is a violation to address the TV 
audience, and I will not do so. But I will express the hope that if 
there are any members of the Iraqi Provisional Assembly watching this, 
they understand the message that is very important. Please do not try 
this at home. Do not, in the Iraqi assembly, show disrespect for the 
rights of the minority.
  That is the hallmark of this outrageous procedure. And why are we 
doing it?
  It is 1:35 on Wednesday. We are going to finish this debate, general 
debate and have the rest of the day to do nothing, tomorrow then maybe 
debate one or two amendments. There is no reason why.
  You know what?
  What about an open rule?
  What about democracy?
  What about bringing a complicated bill to the floor and letting 
Members offer amendments and the majority will win.
  You are not afraid, apparently, of losing the vote. You are afraid of 
losing the argument. And I understand why.
  Let me talk now about asylum. This Congress created the United States 
Commission on International Religious Freedom in 1998. That commission 
just issued a very lengthy report, very critical of the inhumane 
aspects of our asylum operation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from the New York 
Times, documenting that report at this point.

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 8, 2005]

             Asylum Seekers Treated Poorly, U.S. Panel Says

                  (By Nina Bernstein and Marc Santora)

       Thousands of people who come to the United States saying 
     they are seeking refuge from persecution are treated like 
     criminals while their claims are evaluated--strip-searched, 
     shackled and often thrown into solitary confinement in local 
     jails and federal detention centers--a bipartisan federal 
     commission found in a report to be released today.
       The report, by the United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom, an agency created by 
     Congress in 1998, describes an ad hoc system run by the 
     Department of Homeland Security that has extreme disparities 
     in who is released or granted asylum, depending on whether 
     someone seeks refuge in Texas or New York, comes from Iraq or 
     Haiti, or is represented by a lawyer.
       The New York metropolitan region ranks among the harshest 
     in terms of the conditions of detention centers, with 
     constant surveillance, stark quarters and degrading 
     treatment. Those awaiting a court decision on asylum are also 
     less likely to be freed. For example, 3.8 percent of asylum 
     seekers were freed from the detention center in Elizabeth, 
     N.J., compared with 94 percent in San Antonio. There were 8.4 
     percent released from the detention center in Queens, while 
     in Chicago 81 percent were let go.
       One of the experts who examined the centers for the 
     commission, Craig Haney, a psychologist who briefed the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject yesterday, said he 
     was shocked by what he found.
       ``I was taken aback by the severity of conditions, the 
     severity of deprivations and, frankly, the expense,'' he said 
     in an interview. He said that one of 19 centers examined

[[Page H448]]

     handled asylum seekers differently from criminals--in Broward 
     County, Fla., where many seeking refuge are from Cuba and 
     where former Cuban refugees form a potent political force. At 
     $83 a day, the Florida center costs less than half the $200 
     per detainee of the Queens detention center, though both are 
     run by the same company.
       The report said that women and children seeking asylum, 
     ``whose trauma histories and emotional needs may be more 
     severe and require more specialized training,'' were at 
     greater risk of harm.
       Among other recommendations, the commission urged that a 
     high-level protector of refugees be appointed to monitor the 
     system and correct inequities.
       Manny Van Pelt, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement, an agency within Homeland Security that oversees 
     the detention of asylum seekers, defended the system.
       ``We have a robust inspections program that conducts audits 
     of our detention facilities nationwide, and our detention 
     facilities are accredited and subjected to regular inspection 
     by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees,'' he said in an 
     interview. ``They are clean and they are safe environments. 
     Even better, the detention system protects the public.''
       The commission had been asked by Congress to examine the 
     effectiveness of the nation's asylum regulations, created in 
     part as a response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, 
     in an effort to balance the country's desire to shelter those 
     suffering from persecution abroad with its need to keep out 
     criminals and terrorists.
       The system, known as expedited removal, requires those 
     seeking asylum at airports and borders to be sent back 
     immediately unless they are found to have a ``credible fear'' 
     of persecution when questioned by immigration officers. Those 
     who pass the test--a vast majority--are then detained until 
     an immigration judge decides the validity of their claim. 
     Unless they are released pending a decision, the average 
     detainee is held for 64 days and a third stay more than 90 
     days--some even years, the report found.
       The number of asylum seekers, and the rate at which they 
     are freed, have both dropped sharply since the terrorist 
     attacks of 2001, the study showed. But rates of asylum also 
     differed sharply by national groups between 2000 and 2004, 
     with more than 80 percent of Cubans given a permanent right 
     to stay, along with more than 60 percent of Iraqis. By 
     contrast, just more than 10 percent of those from Haiti and 
     fewer than 5 percent of those from EI Salvador were granted 
     asylum. Detainees represented by lawyers were up to 30 times 
     more likely to gain asylum, but in some places fewer than 
     half the detainees had lawyers.
       With the exception of the operation at George Bush 
     Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the report found that 
     asylum seekers were not pressed to withdraw their asylum 
     claims before the interview, nor were claims summarily 
     denied. But it found that judges often wrongly used airport 
     statements to deny asylum later.
       Before the change in the law, only asylum seekers with 
     criminal records were detained. Now, nearly all are locked up 
     with ordinary criminals. In 2003, 5,585 men and 1,015 women 
     seeking asylum were jailed. To cut down on that number, the 
     commission recommended that the airport interviewers, and not 
     just immigration judges, be given the authority to grant 
     asylum on the spot when warranted.
       Severe psychological damage is among the effects of 
     throwing people seeking refuge together with criminals in 
     ``stark conditions,'' the report said, describing 24-hour 
     lights, chained walks to go eat, no privacy even to use the 
     toilet and little chance to exercise outdoors. Detainees are 
     allowed to work but paid $1 a day.
       Five of the 19 detention centers examined had mental health 
     staff, and none had guards trained to work with victims of 
     torture or repression. In most places the treatment for those 
     considered suicidal was solitary confinement. A footnote 
     pointed out that isolation was ``likely to exacerbate 
     depression,'' not prevent suicide.
       ``The whole detention system is there to break you down 
     further,'' one former detainee told interviewers in the 
     report. ``You are not even allowed to cry. If you do, they 
     take you to isolation.''
       Cut off from the outside world and not allowed incoming 
     calls, even from a lawyer, the detainees are at high risk for 
     depression, the commission said, and some even said they gave 
     up their quest for asylum because of the unbearable 
     conditions.
       Since the 1996 change in immigration law, critics have 
     complained that the system is subjecting those fleeing 
     torture and repression to harsh conditions in detention that 
     can drag on for years. But this is the first bipartisan 
     examination based on an inside view.
       One of the Republican commission members, Michael K. Young, 
     the president of the University of Utah and an adviser to 
     President George H. W. Bush, said great pains were taken to 
     make the two-year effort politically balanced. ``That is one 
     of the things that gives this report real strength,'' he 
     said.
       Preeta D. Bansal, a Democrat who chaired the commission, 
     said more research is needed, especially on the reasons for 
     the sharp drop in asylum seekers. ``We have been told that in 
     foreign countries the Department of Homeland Security is 
     being employed to prevent people from even getting on board 
     airplanes,'' said Ms. Bansal, a former solicitor general of 
     New York State. ``We think further follow-up needs to be 
     done.''
       The report comes the same week that asylum legislation is 
     to be introduced in the House by Representative F. James 
     Sensenbrenner Jr., a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the 
     Judiciary Committee. Among other visions, the bill, known as 
     the Real ID Act, would make it harder for refugees to get 
     asylum.

  So we have a bipartisan Committee on International Religious Freedom 
critical of our denial of asylum rights. And what is the response of 
the majority? Let us make a bad situation worse.
  Mr. Speaker, why not an open amendment procedure so those of us who 
have paid attention to this report could offer amendments that embody 
it? Why will we not be allowed to offer amendments from this 
interreligious commission, and it is an interreligious commission.
  I know one of the problems the majority has, and I sympathize, but 
apparently somebody has Bowdlerized their Bibles. And I sympathize; 
these are people who have Bibles, but their Bibles have big things 
missing. For example, we often hear Leviticus quoted on the floor of 
the House. Leviticus 19, chapters 33 and 34, ``When an alien lives with 
you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must 
be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you 
were aliens in Egypt.''
  Now, that is in Leviticus. I know Leviticus gets turned on and off 
here like an electric bulb, but it does now seem to me that kind of 
cafeteria approach to religion is something the majority has adopted. 
Here we have it in Leviticus. This is undoubtedly why the Catholic 
bishops have spoken out against this bill and have asked some of us to 
oppose it. But again, religion is to be invoked selectively so 
religious values are for another time, not when there is political hay 
to be made by taking this popular stance.
  What we have is an undemocratic procedure being mobilized to 
suppress, even debate, and an opportunity to consider the report of 
this commission in the service of a doctrine which would seem to me to 
violate some fundamental religious principles. I guess the majority has 
the votes to do that if they want to, but they have a day to 
reconsider, and I hope perhaps something will change their minds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of the bright new members of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules. I rise in full support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who keep 
saying, we are not given enough time and we are rushing all of these 
complicated issues that we have not discussed, but these provisions I 
remind my colleagues, they were in the original bill that we passed on 
the House side, the Intel bill. Unfortunately, they were taken out by 
the Senate conferees.
  We are asking to do the things that the 9/11 Commission, all 10 of 
them, in their unanimous report, asked us to do. Listen to this: ``If 
terrorist travel options are reduced, they may be forced to rely on 
means of interaction which can be more easily monitored and to resort 
to travel documents which are more readily detectable.''
  The 9/11 Commission Report, page 65, ``All but one of the 9/11 
hijackers acquired some form of United States identification document, 
some by fraud.'' Acquisition of these forms of identification would 
have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and 
other necessary activities.
  The 9/11 Commission Report, page 390, ``My daughter worked at the 
Republican Convention this summer. I worried about her. Unbeknownst to 
me, during the convention an illegal alien from Pakistan was picked up 
and arrested for attempting to bomb the Herald Square subway station. 
She rode on that subway every day going back and forth to work.'' He 
was quoted as saying, ``I want at least 1,000 to 2,000 to die in a 
single day.'' And that alien had applied for asylum.
  Mr. Speaker, these are sensible provisions. We are completing the 
work of the Intel bill, and I support it. We need to get it done and we 
need bipartisan support.

[[Page H449]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) whether 
he is on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia and 
I are on the Committee on Rules, and we know this measure did not come 
up until 2 hours just before we went in there. We also know there were 
no hearings. We also know that the 9/11 Commission went much further 
than what the gentleman presented here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to give a more 
exemplary outline of what transpired.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, what I would have asked the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), had he been willing to yield some time, was to 
show me where in the 9/11 Report it makes any reference to making any 
of the changes in the asylum law that are being proposed by the 
majority here in this bill. There is no reference to that whatsoever, 
because the 9/11 Commission knew that terrorists and threats to 
national security cannot get asylum.
  Instead, the majority, because it does not agree with the Commission 
on Religious Freedom, because it does not accept fundamental traditions 
of people who have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their 
political attitudes or their ethnicity or their religion or their 
gender, they do not want to make sure they are able to get asylum, they 
dump a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with terrorism in 
here, not recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report, and then try to 
claim we are simply fulfilling the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005. The 9/11 Commission Report stated 
that the abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior 
immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support 
terrorist activity.
  This bill will establish common-sense requirements for proof of 
identification for all driver's licenses and State-issued 
identification cards. This would stop the abuse of our asylum system by 
terrorist aliens and finish construction of a border fence that will 
secure one of the most trafficked corridors for illegal aliens and 
safeguard the United States Naval base in San Diego, California.
  We know that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some type of 
U.S. identification documents. In fact, the 19 hijackers had 63 
driver's licenses among them. These licenses assisted the terrorists in 
boarding commercial flights, renting cars and other activities 
necessary to carry out their horrible plans.

                              {time}  1345

  This legislation ensures that terrorists will not be able to game our 
system any longer and we cannot allow mass murderers into our country 
any longer.
  Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement Agency, more than 3 million illegal aliens came across our 
border last year, and I bet probably more than that. We have no idea 
where they are or where they are from. However we do know that during 
the 9-month period from October, 2003, through June, 2004, over 44,000 
non-Mexican aliens were caught trying to cross the northern and 
southern U.S. borders. Among these aliens, several hundred were from 
the Mideast countries unfriendly to the United States. Without this 
legislation, many more will come; and this is a risk we cannot afford 
to take.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I gather those unfriendly 
nations were like Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hinojosa), who lives in south Texas and is on the Texas-Mexican border 
and may have some experiences in this regard.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 418, the REAL 
ID Act. I do come from south Texas, and I was born and raised in the 
area, and I can speak to this situation.
  The REAL ID Act turns its back on American values. If this act were 
to pass, America would no longer be the beacon of hope for individuals 
fleeing persecution. Instead, it would block victims of torture and 
other forms of persecution from being granted refugee status in the 
United States and will deport them into the hands of their persecutors.
  The asylum process already includes extensive security checks, and 
asylum applicants are checked against data banks with DHS, with FBI, 
the State Department, and with the CIA.
  Today's Washington Post reports that individuals seeking asylum in 
this country are often mistreated and incarcerated with criminals in 
the name of security as their cases are being processed. Our national 
policy must not be to add to the sufferings of refugees. This 
legislation will compound the problem.
  This legislation undermines the bipartisan Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Protection Act that we passed just a few months ago. It 
deletes security provisions of the Intelligence Reform Act that had the 
overwhelming support of both parties, including, one, establishing 
minimum standards for driver's licenses and identification cards 
necessary to gain access to Federal facilities; two, establishing 
identification procedures to board a plane; and, three, mandating a GAO 
study on potential weaknesses in the U.S. asylum system.
  The REAL ID Act attempts to shift the burden of immigration 
enforcement to the States, and immigration is a Federal responsibility. 
It is time for us to take that responsibility seriously and pass real 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I remind my colleagues that there was no hearing with reference to 
this matter. There are 43 new Members in the House of Representatives 
who have absolutely no opportunity to have voiced themselves regarding 
this matter. There is a new Committee on Homeland Security that is now 
permanent, rightly so. There was no hearing there. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin's (Mr. Sensenbrenner) manager's amendment came to the 
Committee on Rules 2 hours before we had an opportunity to see it, and 
I would urge in the House how many have read it even at this point.
  More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, BICE, in the authorized budget that we presented to the 
President, it required 800 new officials for that agency. Only 143 are 
in the President's budget.
  I also include for the Record the National Conference of State 
Legislatures' letter in opposition and the National Governors 
Association and American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators' 
opposition to this measure.
  Additionally, there are others who are too numerous to mention 
without great prolixity, but I will cite in the Record some of the 
organizations that oppose this measure: the AFL-CIO; the American 
Jewish Committee; the Anti-Defamation League; the Asian American Legal 
Defense and Education Fund; Catholic Charities USA and Catholic 
Bishops; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; the Irish American Unity 
Conference; the Korean American Coalition; the Mexican American Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, and a footnote, all of the colleagues in 
the House that are Latino and African American have signed on to a 
letter opposing this measure; the National Conference of State 
Legislatures that I just mentioned; the National Council of La Raza; 
the Service Employees International Union; the Arab-American Anti-
Discrimination Committee. And, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Liberty 
Caucus opposes this measure.
  And in addition, thereto, in case someone thinks that there are a 
whole bunch of left wing crazies that are out

[[Page H450]]

here trying to protect the personal rights of individuals, the 
Gunowners of America Association opposes this measure and the American 
Conservative Union. I would think, then, that those 100-plus 
organizations should give us a lot of food for thought before we 
proceed.

  Identity Security, Driver's Licenses and State Identification Cards


                       official policy statement

       States traditionally have maintained authority over the 
     issuance of driver's licenses and state identification cards. 
     The principal purpose of the driver's license is to certify 
     individuals to operate a motorized vehicle and to secure 
     automobile insurance. Driver's licenses also are used for 
     numerous other purposes, including proof and verification of 
     identity and as documents to qualify for a variety of 
     commercial, financial, educational, governmental and other 
     services. The driver's licensing process and related 
     regulatory activities are crucial for maintaining public 
     safety, bolstering security, and reducing fraud and 
     counterfeiting. States have renewed their scrutiny of 
     driver's licenses and have enacted and considered legislation 
     to strengthen application processes, require expanded proof 
     of identity, modify qualifications for license and 
     identification card approval, deter fraudulent activity, and 
     bolster privacy protections.
       Although states retain authority over the driver's license 
     application and issuance processes, Congress recently passed 
     the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     to overhaul the nation's intelligence systems. This 
     legislation included federal standards for state issued 
     driver's licenses and personal identification cards that the 
     states must enact or face the refusal of federal agencies to 
     accept these documents for any official purpose. Although 
     NCSL opposed this federal mandate, NCSL worked with Congress 
     to ensure that state elected officials are included on a 
     negotiated rulemaking committee, which will devise the 
     federal standards, to apply the standards only to newly 
     issued documents, and to require the Secretary of the 
     Department of Transportation to identify the cost of the 
     federal standards on states prior to their implementation.
       NCSL is committed to preserving the congressional intent of 
     the Act by ensuring that state legislatures are represented 
     on the negotiated rulemaking committee. NCSL strongly 
     believes that the negotiated standards should provide states 
     with maximum flexibility within the framework of the federal 
     Act to implement the standards. NCSL encourages the Secretary 
     of Transportation to exercise his authority under the Act to 
     grant states extensions of the effective date if they make 
     reasonable efforts to comply, and NCSL is committed to 
     working with Congress and the Secretary to delay the 
     implementation of the Act if Congress fails to appropriate 
     funds to implement the standards. NCSL further encourages the 
     Secretary to exercise his authority under the Act to include 
     individuals from organizations that represent civil liberties 
     and privacy interests on the negotiated rulemaking committee.
       Although there is a need to strengthen the driver's license 
     application process and to address inadequacies, states 
     remain best positioned to accomplish these goals. States have 
     direct experience with driver's license formatting, identity 
     verification procedures and systems, customer service, 
     qualifying and insuring drivers, testing potential and 
     licensed drivers, and driver training. State laws and 
     regulations guide these activities. States also are mindful 
     of needs to protect consumers, taxpayers, business concerns 
     and privacy, all of which must be taken into account while 
     enhancing security and public safety. Any federal standards 
     should be narrowly limited to those areas enumerated in the 
     federal Act and should in no way limit the ability of states 
     to innovate to strengthen the integrity of document 
     verification and issuance.
       NCSL supports the innovative efforts at the state level to 
     address security concerns with driver's license issuance. 
     Currently, individual states are considering legislative and 
     regulatory actions, interstate compacts, model legislation, 
     intergovernmental agreements, data sharing, standards 
     development through recognized standards-developing entities, 
     and enhanced legislative and executive branch coordination. 
     NCSL will provide organizational support to states as they 
     opt to pursue any or all of these or other avenues to reform. 
     NCSL will oppose any federal legislative or regulatory effort 
     to require states to adopt specific model legislation or 
     participate in an interstate compact.
       NCSL believes that the federal government does have a 
     significant role in assisting states with matters regarding 
     non-citizens and their qualification for and use of state-
     issued driver's licenses and identification cards. States 
     need direct links to verifiable, timely and accurate date 
     regarding status, duration of stay, application for change in 
     status and related information. The expanding number of 
     visas, backlogs on applications for status changes and 
     inability to either access or navigate Department of Homeland 
     Security data systems are among the problems requiring 
     resolution so that states can administer non-citizen 
     applications for driver's licenses and identification cards. 
     Without these changes, states cannot be expected to, nor be 
     held accountable for, providing enhanced security in their 
     driver's license application and issuance processes.*
       This discussion has rekindled debate and concern about the 
     development of a national identification card or national 
     driver's license. NCSL continues to believe that there is no 
     compelling reason to establish such national cards or 
     licenses and will work with Congress and federal officials to 
     ensure that such an establishment is not achieved--either 
     intentionally or unintentionally--through legislation, 
     regulation or rulemaking process.
       NCSL believes that states must establish am ore cooperative 
     working relationship on this issue with the federal 
     government. Therefore, NCSL supports a federal role in 
     providing technical support, highlighting successful models, 
     facilitating discussion and providing necessary funding for 
     changes made at the discretion of the states.
       NCSL is opposed to any further federal attempts including 
     coercion or direct preemption, to usurp state authority over 
     the driver's license process or diminish the validity or 
     usefulness of licenses awarded at the state level. NCSL urges 
     the federal government to respect the provisions and intent 
     of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
                                  ____

                                           American Association of


                                 Motor Vehicle Administrators,

                                                 February 8, 2005.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas DeLay,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, Representative DeLay and Representative 
     Pelosi: We write to express our opposition to Title II of 
     H.R. 418, the ``Improved Security For Driver's Licenses and 
     Personal Identification Cards'' provision, and H.R. 368, the 
     ``Driver's License Security and Modernization Act''. While 
     Governors and motor vehicle administrators share your concern 
     for increasing the security and integrity of the driver's 
     license and state identification processes, we firmly believe 
     that the driver's license and ID card provisions of the 
     Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
     offer the best course for meeting those goals.
       The ``Driver's Licenses and Personal Identification Cards'' 
     provision in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 provides a 
     workable framework for developing meaningful standards to 
     increase reliability and security of driver's licenses and ID 
     cards. This framework calls for input from state elected 
     officials and motor vehicle administrators in the regulatory 
     process, protects state eligibility criteria, and retains the 
     flexibility necessary to incorporate best practices from 
     around the states. We have begun to work with the U.S. 
     Department of Transportation to develop the minimum 
     standards, which must be completed in 18 months pursuant to 
     the Intelligence Reform Act.
       We commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Davis for 
     their commitment to driver's license integrity; however, both 
     H.R. 418 and H.R. 368 would impose technological standards 
     and verification procedures on states, many of which are 
     beyond the current capacity of even the federal government. 
     Moreover, the cost of implementing such standards and 
     verification procedures for the 220 million driver's licenses 
     issued by states represents a massive unfunded federal 
     mandate.
       Our states have made great strides since the September 11, 
     2001 terrorists attacks to enhance the security processes and 
     requirements for receiving a valid driver's and ID card. The 
     framework in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 will allow 
     us to work cooperatively with the federal government to 
     develop and implement achievable standards to prevent 
     document fraud and other illegal activity related to the 
     issuance of driver's licenses and ID cards.
       We urge you to allow the provisions in the Intelligence 
     Reform Act of 2004 to work. Governors and motor vehicle 
     administrators are committed to this process because it will 
     allow us to develop mutually agreed-upon standards that can 
     truly help create a more secure America.
           Sincerely,
     Raymond C. Scheppach,
       Executive Director, National Governors Association.
     Linda R. Lewis,
       President and CEO, American Association of Motor Vehicle 
     Administrators.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The time of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the favorite son from San 
Dimas, chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which 
will simply allow us to consider general debate, and in 7 minutes we 
are going to be up in the Committee on Rules considering a number of 
those issues that the gentleman from Florida just raised,

[[Page H451]]

deciding what it is that we will debate here on the House floor 
tomorrow. So the process is still ongoing and Members are involved in 
that, and it is one that we look forward to considering before too 
long.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for his very strong commitment to all homeland security 
issues, a top priority.
  And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that border security is a critically 
important aspect of the number one priority that we have at the Federal 
level. The five most important words in the middle of the preamble of 
the U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense,'' and 
securing our borders is a priority, and it should be of any sovereign 
nation.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and I had the 
privilege of serving as conferees last fall as we sought to implement 
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, our friends 
in the other body decided not to include provisions that would provide 
guidelines to ensure that the likes of Mohammed Atta who flew a plane 
into the World Trade Center just days before he was to appear in court 
because of a traffic violation that he had had with a driver's license, 
that was something that we felt strongly should have been incorporated 
to rectify that in the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Unfortunately, 
our colleagues in the other body chose to ignore that.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) worked hard to ensure that we 
would be able to complete the 3\1/2\-mile gap through what is known as 
Smugglers Gulch, an area that is today devastated environmentally 
because people cross the border illegally. Unfortunately, our 
colleagues in the other body refused to accept that.
  Both of those things were issues that were of concern to the 9/11 
Commission; and if we look at the 9/11 Commission report, they make it 
very clear that we need to address these kinds of issues as they relate 
to border security.
  So what we decided, of course, at the end, as we prepare to implement 
that, was that we would, as soon as the 109th Congress convened, 
proceed with passage of this very important aspect of our border 
security and, by virtue of that, our national security. That is why I 
think this measure should enjoy strong bipartisan support. This is an 
issue that Democrats and Republicans alike can come together on to 
ensure that we do, we do, secure our borders. So I think that we have a 
wonderful opportunity here to deal with border security.
  The issue of immigration reform is another question. I am supporting 
this effort on border security in part because I am convinced that we 
will be able to, down the road and I hope soon, address the immigration 
reform question. I happen to believe that it is important for us to 
identify the people who are here in this country illegally. And, yes, I 
am opposed to granting blanket amnesty, as is President Bush, but I do 
believe that moving in the direction of some sort of worker program is 
something that we must look at and must address. But we are taking a 
proper step in finally doing what we wanted to have incorporated in the 
9/11 Commission package that we passed out of here, and I congratulate 
all my colleagues who have been involved in this.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule on H.R. 
418.
  Our Nation's immigration policy has been of top concern in recent 
years, and for good reason. With between eight and twelve million 
illegal aliens in the United States, it is obviously a problem out of 
control.
  We need to increase border security and fix our immigration laws. We 
need a system that will encourage well-intentioned, contributing aliens 
out of the shadows and allow them to pay a reasonable penalty so they 
can come into compliance with the law.
  Americans are rightly concerned about the security and the integrity 
of the Nation's borders because the system is broken. Some are 
concerned about the possibility of terrorists crossing our borders and 
coming into our cities.
  But we cannot effectively fight terrorism if we fail to make the 
distinction between them and busboys and housekeepers.
  From 1990 to 2000, the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents nearly 
tripled, but illegal immigration increased by as much as 5.5 million.
  Increasing enforcement resources to keep out willing immigrant 
workers, as we did throughout the 1990s, has not worked. It has failed, 
and we need enforcement to be much more narrowly focused on criminals 
and potential terrorists.
  Today, we are considering H.R. 418. This legislation begins the 
debate on the enforcement aspects of immigration and addresses the 
narrow issue of driver license security.
  I have reservations about the gradual move toward what could become a 
National ID card, but this legislation begins to address issues 
necessary to focus efforts in enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 418, but while doing 
so, I suggest that enforcement, border security and immigration reform 
must be worked on together.
  In fact, fixing the broken system requires a broader strategy that 
includes both enforcement and the creation of adequate legal channels 
for immigration that serve the Nation's interests.
  By creating legal channels for those looking for a better life and 
looking to fill jobs that Americans will not fill, we enhance our 
enforcement efforts. The responsible authorities can focus their 
resources first on the worst actors.
  Our immigration laws and policies must reflect the realities we face 
today. Our economy demands workers, but our national security demands 
that we identify those lurking in the shadows.
  Enhanced enforcement must be the top priority for immigration policy.
  The American people are not anti-immigrant. We are concerned about 
the lack of coherence in our immigration policy and enforcement.
  As part of today's debate, we must realize that the Congress needs to 
address the other issues with immigration reform now.
  Broader immigration reform has been outlined by President Bush. I 
commend him for his act of leadership.
  He has outlined the solution and now Congress must act quickly in 
crafting legislation. This bill is our first step in a long journey to 
restore public confidence in an open, welcoming immigration code.

                  Let Us Give Thanks to Our Immigrants

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 24, 2004]

                          (By Rupert Murdoch)

       When B.C. Forbes sailed for America from Scotland in 1904, 
     he was following a course well worn by generations of Scots.
       I know how the founder of Forbes magazine must have felt. 
     The Murdochs originally hail from the same part of Scotland. 
     Today, we are part of the most recent wave of immigrants 
     attracted by the bright beacon of American liberty.
       These days, it's not always easy to talk about the benefits 
     of immigration. Especially since 9/11, many Americans worry 
     about borders and security. These are legitimate concerns. 
     But surely a nation as great as America has the wit and 
     resources to distinguish between those who come here to 
     destroy the American Dream--and the many millions more who 
     come to live it.
       The evidence of the contributions these immigrants make to 
     our society is all around us--especially in the critical area 
     of education. Adam Smith, another Scotsman, knew that without 
     a decent system of education, a modem capitalist society was 
     committing suicide. Well, our modern public school systems 
     simply are not producing the talent the American economy 
     needs to compete in the future. And it often seems that it is 
     our immigrants who are holding the whole thing up.
       In a study on high school students released this past 
     summer, the National Foundation for American Policy found 60 
     percent of the top science students, and 65 percent of the 
     top math students, are children of immigrants. The same study 
     found that seven of the top award winners at the 2004 Intel 
     Science Talent Search were immigrants or children of 
     immigrants. This correlates with other findings that more 
     than half of engineers--and 45 percent of math and computer 
     scientists--with Ph.D.s now working in the U.S. are foreign 
     born.
       It's not just the statistics. You see it at our most elite 
     college and university campuses, where Asian immigrants or 
     their children are disproportionately represented. And a 
     recent study of 28 prestigious American universities by 
     researchers from Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania 
     found something startling: that 41 percent of the black 
     students attending these schools described themselves as 
     either immigrants or children of immigrants.
       The point is that by almost any measure of educational 
     excellence you choose, if you're in America you're going to 
     find immigrants or their children at the top. I don't just 
     mean engineers and scientists and technicians. In my book, 
     anyone who comes here and gives an honest day's work for an 
     honest day's pay is not only putting himself closer to the 
     American Dream, he's helping the rest of us get there too.
       As Ronald Reagan said at the Statue of Liberty, ``While we 
     applaud those immigrants who stand out, whose contributions 
     are easily discerned, we know that America's heroes are also 
     those whose names are remembered by only a few.''
       Let me share some of these names with you.

[[Page H452]]

       Start with Eddie Chin, an ethnic Chinese Marine who was 
     born a week after his family fled Burma. You've all seen Cpl. 
     Chin. Because when Baghdad fell, he was the Marine we all 
     watched shimmy up the statue of Saddam Hussein to attach the 
     cable that would pull it down.
       Or Lance Cpl. Ahmad Ibrahim. His family came to the U.S. 
     from Syria when the first Gulf War broke out. Now Cpl. 
     Ibrahim hopes to be deployed to Iraq--also as a Marine--to 
     put his Arabic language skills in the service of Corps and 
     Country.
       Or what about Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who was raised in 
     Guatemala and came to America as a boy--illegally! Cpl. 
     Gutierrez was one of the first Marines killed in action in 
     Iraq. As his family told reporters, this young immigrant 
     enlisted with the Marine Corps because he wanted to ``give 
     back'' to America.
       So here we have it--Asian Marines, Arab Marines, Latino 
     Marines--all united in the mission of protecting the rest of 
     us. Isn't this what Reagan meant when he said that the bond 
     that ties our immigrants together--what makes us a nation 
     instead of a collection of individuals--is ``an abiding love 
     of liberty''? So the next time you hear people whining about 
     what a ``drain'' on America our immigrants are, it might be 
     worth asking if they consider these Marines a drain.
       Maybe this is more clear to businessmen because of what we 
     see every day. My company, News Corporation, is a 
     multinational company based in America. Our diversity is 
     based on talent, cooperation and ability.
       Frankly it doesn't bother me in the least that millions of 
     people are attracted to our shores. What we should worry 
     about is the day they no longer find these shores attractive. 
     In an era when too many of our pundits declare that the 
     American Dream is a fraud, it is America's immigrants who 
     remind us--by dint of their success--that the Dream is alive, 
     and well within reach of anyone willing to work for it.
       We are fortunate to have a president who understands that. 
     Only a few days ago, the White House indicated that it 
     intended to revive an immigration reform which the president 
     had first offered before 9/11 and tried to revive back in 
     January.
       Politically speaking, a guest-worker plan is no easy thing. 
     But as President Bush realizes, we'll never fix the problem 
     of illegal immigration simply by throwing up walls and trying 
     to make all of us police them. We've tried that for a decade 
     or so now, and it's been a flop. What we need to do first is 
     to make it easier for those who seek honest work to do so 
     without having to disobey our laws. Fundamentally that means 
     recognizing that an economy as powerful as ours is always 
     going to have a demand for more workers.
       Such a policy would benefit us all: It would help those who 
     want nothing more than to work legally move out of the 
     shadows. It would help our security forces stop wasting 
     resources now spent on hunting down Mexican waitresses and 
     start devoting them to tracking the terrorists who really 
     threaten us. It would help the economy by providing America 
     with the labor and talent it needs.
       Given the tremendous pressures on President Bush and the 
     considerable opposition from within his own ranks, the 
     politically expedient thing for him to do would be to drop 
     it. But he hasn't, and I for one am encouraged by his refusal 
     to give in.
       The immigrant editor B.C. Forbes spent much of the 20th 
     century championing the glories of American opportunity. We 
     who have arrived more recently likewise will never forget our 
     debt we owe to this land--and the obligation to keep that 
     same opportunity alive in the 21st.
       Mr. Murdoch is chairman and chief executive of News 
     Corporation. This is adapted from a speech he gave last 
     Thursday, in acceptance of the 2004 B.C. Forbes Award.
                                  ____


               [From the Orlando Sentinel, Jan. 2, 2005]

                  Immigration Reform: A 3-Legged Stool

                       (By Bishop Thomas Wenski)

       While not a major theme of last fall's campaign, a debate 
     on immigration reform will be front and center in the early 
     days of the new Bush administration. Early last year, 
     President Bush acknowledged that our immigration system is 
     broken and needs to be fixed. For this he deserves credit. 
     Recognizing that there is a problem is a critical first step 
     toward finding a solution.
       In the past 10 years, more than $20 billion has been spent 
     on adding Border Patrol agents, building fencing and 
     employing technology to prevent border crossings. During 
     roughly the same period, however, estimates on the net number 
     of undocumented entering the country have risen from about 
     300,000 per year to about 500,000 per year. More disturbing 
     is that, in the past five years, more than 2,000 migrants 
     have lost their lives perishing in remote portions of the 
     American Southwest.
       And yet those who survive the gauntlet of a dangerous 
     border crossing find work in short order. Our economy needs 
     their manpower: the Labor Department projects that, by the 
     year 2008, there will be 6 million more low-skilled jobs 
     available than Americans able to fill them. At the same time, 
     these workers contribute billions to the tax and Social 
     Security systems.
       Truth be told, our current system, instead of discouraging 
     undocumented migration, makes it inevitable because adequate 
     provisions in law do not exist to match up willing workers 
     from other countries with unfilled jobs here. Work visas for 
     unskilled workers are absurdly small compared to the demand--
     5,000 in the permanent system and up to 66,000 in the 
     temporary one. Family-unity visas can be even scarcer, with 
     waiting times as long as 10 years for Mexican families to be 
     reunited with a relative who is a U.S. citizen or legal 
     resident.
       We need immigration reform legislation with three major 
     components, akin to a three-legged stool. The administration 
     plan proposed last January addresses only one leg--
     employment--which is insufficient to support the weight on 
     the system.
       First, any new proposal should feature means for 
     undocumented long-term residents to access permanent 
     residency. Legalization does not necessarily mean amnesty. It 
     can be conditioned on any number of criteria including--for 
     example, ``sweat equity'' the undocumented have already 
     accrued through their work in the United States. Such a legal 
     remedy would stabilize both immigrant families and the labor 
     force.
       Second, it should reform the employment-based legal 
     immigration system in a way that increases legal avenues to 
     work while protecting the rights of both foreign-born and 
     U.S. workers. This would permit future flows of workers to 
     enter safely and legally and reduce deaths at the border.
       Third, the plan should shorten waiting times under the 
     family reunification system. Too often, our current system 
     separates husbands from wives and parents from children, a 
     morally unacceptable outcome in a nation built upon the 
     strength of the family.
       Anti-immigrant polemicists ignore the human tragedy and 
     familial dislocation enabled by the status quo, while 
     discounting the invaluable contributions immigrants make to 
     our nation. Americans are, as a whole, fair-minded people. We 
     cannot continue to accept the benefits of undocumented 
     laborers but be unwilling to extend to them the protection of 
     the law. The undocumented are not ``breaking'' the law as 
     much as they are being ``broken'' by the law.
       After our country's unhappy experience with Jim Crow 
     ``laws'' that resulted in the creation of a large black 
     underc1ass, we should not repeat the same mistake in 
     tolerating the creation of a large immigrant underc1ass by 
     not affording legal remedies that would afford them the 
     protection of law and the opportunity for upward mobility.
       We applaud the president for recognizing how the present 
     immigration regime hurts both Americans and undocumented 
     immigrants in America. The new Congress should work with 
     President Bush to enact a comprehensive solution to our 
     immigration crisis. Only such a ``three-legged'' 
     comprehensive approach will protect human rights and prepare 
     our nation for the challenges of the future.
                                  ____


                 [From the Sun-Sentinel, Jan. 9, 2005]

                           For Doable Policy

       Resolving the dilemma posed by many millions of 
     ``undocumented'' workers in America requires compromise that 
     few will find completely satisfying. Temporary work permits 
     will please neither those who want all illegal immigrants 
     deported nor those who want another round of amnesty.
       Amnesty is politically untenable, and deporting millions of 
     people is not doable. It would require enormous amounts of 
     money and manpower from a government that is already strapped 
     to meet current social obligations and international 
     commitments.
       President Bush told reporters recently that he wants U.S. 
     Border Patrol agents chasing ``crooks and thieves and drug-
     runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are 
     coming here to work.'' The president is seeking levelheaded 
     immigration legislation that could improve domestic security 
     and put policy in line with the needs of the globalized 
     American economy.
       The most sensible approach would offer legitimacy to those 
     who have worked diligently in America, while imposing and 
     enforcing tough employer sanctions against companies that 
     continue to employ undocumented workers. This would weaken 
     the so-called magnet effect that lures otherwise law-abiding 
     people to jump the border.
       Such a policy requires several key provisions. One would 
     obligate illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows to 
     prove their identities in return for some form of legitimate 
     status.
       This type of trade-off serves U.S. interests by identifying 
     those who are here ``to work,'' as the president has said. 
     Bringing them out of the woodwork would allow law enforcement 
     agents to focus more sharply on catching those who are here 
     to do harm.
       A reform bill should take into account the brainpower needs 
     of the U.S. economy. There are untold numbers of people 
     around the world who are standing in line to legally enter 
     the United States, and many of these would-be immigrants 
     possess skills that American employers need.
       Since the Sept. 11 attacks, this process has become 
     cumbersome and counterproductive. Immigration reform should 
     streamline the process for granting skilled foreigners access 
     to the United States, particularly those well-suited for 
     workplaces that have a tough time finding qualified hands.
       There's no reason the United States can't have a policy 
     that promotes safety while meeting the needs of the 
     workplace.
       Congress and the White House can find suitable resolutions 
     to the security, social and labor quandaries posed by 
     immigration if prejudices and stigmas are shoved aside in

[[Page H453]]

     favor of rational proposals that bolster U.S. security and 
     global competitiveness.

  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, the REAL ID Act completes the mission of the 
9/11 Commission recommendations by implementing common sense reforms to 
strengthen our borders security and better protect our homeland.


           Implementing Much Needed Driver's License Reforms

  Driver's licenses have become the primary identification document in 
the United States, enabling individuals to get other identity 
documents, transfer funds to a U.S. bank account, obtain access to 
federal buildings and other vulnerable facilities, purchase a firearm, 
rent a car and board a plane.
  Lax standards and loopholes in the current issuance processes allow 
terrorists to obtain driver's licenses--often multiple licenses from 
different states--and abuse the license for identification purposes.
  The Sept 11th hijackers had, within their possession, at least 15 
valid drivers licenses and numerous State issued identity cards with a 
large variety of addresses.
  Identification documents are the last opportunity to ensure that 
people are who they say they are and to check whether they are 
terrorists.
  The REAL ID Act would require applicants to provide proof they are in 
the country legally. Currently, eleven states do not have such a 
requirement, meaning a majority of states have already recognized the 
need for tighter standards, but unnecessary and dangerous gaps in the 
system still exist.
  The REAL ID Act would require identity documents to expire at the 
same time as the expiration of lawful entry status, preventing those 
who have illegally entered or are unlawfully present in the U.S. from 
having valid identification documents.
  States would still issue driver's licenses and identification cards 
and would control their own driver database.


                        closing asylum loopholes

  The 9-11 Commission's staff report on ``9-11 and Terrorist Travel'' 
found that ``a number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum system''.
  Examples of Terrorists Abusing Our Asylum Laws:
  The ``Blind Sheik'', Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, led a plot to bomb New 
York City landmarks. Rahman used an asylum application to avoid 
deportation to Egypt after all other means of remaining in the U.S. 
failed.
  The 9/11 Commission staff report noted than an immigration judge held 
a hearing on Rahman's asylum claim weeks before his followers bombed 
the WorId Trade Center.
  During the Republican Convention last August, an illegal alien from 
Pakistan was picked up and arrested for attempting to bomb the Herald 
Square subway station and plotting to bomb the Verrazano Narrows 
bridge. He was quoted as saying that ``I want at least 1,000 to 2,000 
to die in one day.'' The alien had applied for asylum.
  A number of courts, specifically the 9th Circuit Court has severely 
undermined current authorities by limiting the factors that judges can 
consider when assessing the credibility of an alien seeking asylum. 
This impairment encourages asylum fraud.
  The REAL ID Act would strengthen judges' ability to determine whether 
the asylum seeker is truthful. This provision codifies the factors 
immigration judges use to assess credibility and prevents the 9th 
Circuit from further undermining our national security.


                           defending borders

  In 1996 Congress approved building the 14 mile long San Diego Border 
Fence on the Mexico-U.S. border, right next to a major U.S. Navy base.
  The San Diego Sector covers an area of more than 7,000 square miles 
and contains 66 linear miles of international border with Mexico. 
Directly to the south of the San Diego Sector area of responsibility 
lie the Mexican cities of Tijuana and Tecate, which have a combined 
population of more than two million.
  For decades, this area had been the preferred corridor for entry into 
the United States by unknown or undocumented persons due to the highly 
populated cities north and south of the border, as well as relatively 
quick access to national transportation hubs such as LAX.
  Construction of the fence was halted when radical environmentalists 
claimed that the area was a habitat of a rare bird. As a result, eight 
years later, the fence remains incomplete and is an opportunity for 
aliens to cross the border illegally.
  This incomplete fence allows border security gaps to remain open. We 
must close these gaps because they remain a threat to our national 
security.
  The REAL ID Act will require the completion of this important 
security fence.


                     strengthening deportation laws

  Under current immigration laws, prohibitions on some terrorist-
related activities only apply to aliens who are trying to enter the 
U.S., but not to those who already reside within our borders. 
Therefore, if an alien seeking a visa has been found to participate in 
certain terrorist-related activity, he/she is prohibited from entering 
the U.S. But if an alien is found to have participated in the same 
terrorist activity in the U.S., he/she may not be deportable.
  The REAL ID Act would finally make the laws consistent by providing 
that all terrorist-related offenses and making aliens inadmissible 
which would also be grounds for their deportation.
  The REAL ID Act provides that any alien contributing funds to a 
terrorist organization would be deportable.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________